Commenting on this reaction from Bishop Hill to a not-all-that-biased-by-their-standards BBC show about windfarms, regular BH commenter Philip Bratby says:
Only an idiot would consider building offshore wind farms (unless there is some other idiot prepared to give you huge sums of money to do it).
Bratby then mentions a website about a campaign called “Slay The Array”. Slay The Array seems to be an alliance between those who oppose these giant propellers on aesthetic grounds, and those who oppose them on economic grounds, and they have set their particular sites on a vast clutch of propellers (the “Atlantic Array”) which some gang of well-connected thieves and/or lunatics intend to build in the spot where the Severn Estuary turns into the Bristol Channel.
Personally I quite like the look of these giant propellers. But then, I like pylons, and skyscrapers, even scaffolding. As for wildlife, some of it will suffer if they build all these propellers, but other life forms will benefit, just as with every other human impact upon the environment.
However, I am entirely persuaded that, economically, these erections are ridiculous, in fact utterly fraudulent. So, for me, the biggest objection to them by far is this one:
The dash for wind energy is massively subsidised, making wind power three times more expensive than other power, paid for by increasing all our fuel bills, pushing millions into fuel poverty.
If Artists Against Windfarms (who get a mention at the Slay The Array website where it says “our friends”) oppose these stupid, larcenous but to me rather handsome propellers on artistic grounds, that’s fine by me.
Try to be more consistent, please.
You ignore that nuclear power is heavily subsidised, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. In fact, in the US the taxpayer has to pay all the costs of any nuclear accident in, due to a ridiculous law which dumps all costs on the public.
People should be free to set up their own mini-nuke power-plants.
I’m not aware that nuclear power is subsidized (specifics, please), but if it is that’s as wrong as are all the barriers which have been erected to nuclear power plant construction and operation. All forms of energy generation should be free to operate in competition with each other, without political barriers or subsidies.
Wind turbines are ugly because they are useless and a fraud.
Other things are useless economically but still beautiful. Sailboats and sailplanes come to mind. They provide some human satisfaction.
I think vertical axis wind turbines can be quite attractive. That doesn’t justify wasting money on them if they’re uneconomical, though.
The Price-Anderson Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
Famously, insurance companies won’t touch the nuclear industry with a barge pole.
IMHO That’s a pretty inept industry if it can’t convince insurance companies.
It seems to me that not insuring nuclear reactors is good business. Any significant incident would result in bankruptcy for the insurance company as cleanup costs could easily run to the 10’s of billions or even 100’s of billions for a major catastrophe. No premium is worth risking instant ruin for.
As the public benefit from nuclear power there is a fair case to be made that the public bear the cost of an accident collectively. That seems like a good deal to me if we get cheap and abundant nuclear energy in return. If you’d rather shut down the entire nuclear industry due to insurance difficulties then I’d suggest your ideology is getting in the way of actual human requirements.
It seems to me that not insuring nuclear reactors is good business. Any significant incident would result in bankruptcy for the insurance company as cleanup costs could easily run to the 10’s of billions or even 100’s of billions for a major catastrophe. No premium is worth risking instant ruin for.
That’s what reinsurance is for. Natural disasters can do that kind of damage, but you don’t see insurers throwing up their hands and refusing to insure people against hurricanes. If insurers won’t insure nuclear power plants it’s because either they can’t quantify the risk or (more likely) they can’t compete with the government.
Mendicant, I am sure Brian knows that nuclear energy is or has been subsidised. All energy is affected by state policy to some extent, such as through eminent domain to buy land for power stations, etc.
I can envisage nukes in a free market, if other energy sources become very costly.
What Eric said.
I also happen to like the look of the propellers. And skyscrapers. I live near a power plant, and I love the way it looks, especially at night. I’m weird that way…Of course I like “natural” beauty as well. The quotes are to show that I see nothing “unnatural” about human creations – they are no more “unnatural” than birds’ nests.
As to the actual utility of wind turbines (or nuclear plants, or any other mechanism that converts energy present in nature into forms useful to humans), as opposed to their negative impact: we will never know the real math, as long as governments are busy distorting it.
I oppose windfarms on moral grounds (as well as all the other grounds).
As currently organised, they take money away from poor people – via their electricity bills – so that the Prime Minister’s father-in-law, and other rich landowners, can get even richer without doiny anything to deserve it.
I’m no socialist, but this doesn’t seem like the way we should be doing things.
Andrew Duffin hits an important point. I know it is a bit ad hominem, but look at the sort of folk who like windfarms. They tend not to live in poorer parts of the UK.
Alisa,
“we will never know the real math, as long as governments are busy distorting it.”
The math can be calculated, but what use would it be ?
There is no way to get governments out of nuclear or wind energy (nuclear more than wind). The danger and risks involved, and the environmental impact, the land used, are so big, that the “community” (i.e. the government) must be involved in it. There is no other practical way.
With nuclear it’s not only the risk of an accident, it’s also routine decomissioning and cleanup after the end of util life. These costs can be huge, and need to be provided for. We can’t have the risk of a nuclear operator going broke and abandoning a nuclear site.
I don’t see how a nuclear plant can be built without government involvement.
As to the vertical axis turbines – I was surprised how un-ugly (maybe even beautiful) they are.
The standard, horizontal axis monsters are horrible.
Jacob, you are making a circular argument.
Posted by Jacob at January 3, 2012 05:33 PM
All valid points, and ones that I have thought about. First, requiring insurance and reinsurance to the scope of the reasonable upper parameter of possibility could be done if the law stipulated the parameters of liability. If the insurer is going to be successfully hit with all manner of “a bad thing happened, it must be radiation wot done it” claims, then of course insurance is impossible. Whether tort can be harnessed back to the proof-of-harm/cause cart is a different topic. Regarding clean-up of decommissioned plants (and spent fuel), it is a very real concern that needs to be resolved. A bond posting with insurance (and reinsurance) on the cost of decommissioning would be effective.
These things would need to be addressed and resolved prior to the construction of new plants or the full privatization of the risk of existing plants.
If it turns out that under a rational and reality cognizant free market, nuclear power is uninsurable, then it does not mean that government is necessary for efficient production of energy, it means that true costs are being transferred to unwilling recipients by the government acting in contravention of market signals.
Personally, I believe it is our severely compromised tort system that is the problem with nuclear power, not the inherent nature of nuclear power.
One reason it’s dificult to insure nuclear plants is the unknown size of the risk. Insurers must know the amount of insurance to be paid out. Suppose you insure against damages to an astronomic amount – say 10 billion $. Wiil that be enough to pay for relocation of 100,000 people (like at Fukushima) ? And what if the leak was bigger and the winds were strong at the time of the accident and you have to relocate 300,000 like at Chernobyl?
It’s practically impossible to predict the amount of money that will cover all damages.
Insurers are good at covering well defined risks (statistically defined). That does not apply to the nuclear industry.
Besides – the nuclear fuel is produced at government uranium enrichment facilities (afaik) – that alone makes the nuclear industry dependent on the government.
I think the current generation of reactors, designed in the 1950-60 ies, is clumsy and dangerous.
Things may change in the future, many people are working on smaller, safer, modular reactors. The above arguments may change.